What makes Terrorism right and legitmate?

[corporatewhore]

Iwas emailed this i will look for a link but that is not important main question why is terrorism accepted if bombers wear uniforms and badges and have planes with insignias of a country?
Sydney Morning Herald Letters (13.3.04):


Dave Diss, Glengowrie (SA), March 12.

When a series of bombs go off in Spain it is condemned as an
"attack against democracy", while when a daisy-cutter is
dropped from 35,000 feet onto an Afghan wedding party it is
"war against terrorism".

The victims of the bombs in Spain were totally innocent, as
were the victims of the daisy-cutter dropped by the US, so
why are only those in Spain victims of the phoney war
against terrorism, while the Afghans are "collateral
damage"?

Marilyn Shepherd, Kensington (SA), March 12.

Why is it that the politicians around the world who are most
outraged that someone bombs them or their friends are the
ones who were most enthusiastic about bombing someone else
to get what they want?

[mdmc]

1. Those are excellent letters to the editor

:kick:

[corporatewhore]

2. i think so too

[WaywardSon]

3. Nothing, nothing at all.

You sound like your saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for for a tooth". Scary stuff.

[corporatewhore]

4. No i am asking why is state sponsered terrorism considered glorious but

al quaeda is monstrous (which it is)

[WaywardSon]

10. This is a cultural war...

How many times were we hit in the '90's?
WTC in '93.
Two US embassies in Africa in the mid '90's.
The USS COLE in I believe '98.
9-11, 3000 people killed.

They don't care who is in office, they will keep on attacking till they win. I have five grand children. Regardless of who is in office, I want us to win this one.

This is above and should be beyond politics. IMHO.

[AG78]

14. That's the problem

How many people have our bombs killed over there? How many dictators have we supported over there? How many lives have we been playing a chess game with over there?

Some of the innocent people over there have children too, and they don't want to see them killed. And they'd like to win too.

You can't "beat" terrorism. There's no "win" to be had. I don't care how hard you try. All it takes is one single person to be a terrorist. Terrorism has been around forever, and it won't go away. We're not in this for terrorism. The people that wanted this war know that.

Every war ever fought has gotten us to this moment in time. Is this reality really all that good? No? Has any war, in the long run, been worth all the lives lost? Every problem bleeds into the next.

For the sake of argument, lets say that you can actually defeat terrorism. There will be something else that comes after it. Your grandchildren won't live in a safer world no matter what happens today. They'll be dealing with something else. Or maybe even the current terrorism.

I'm 25. I hope that it'll get better. But looking back in history, nothing tells me that it will. If we "win", we go on to the next problem. If we "lose", we go on to the next problem.

[punpirate]

11. Perhaps it's point of view....

Remember the old saw, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

Had the term been in common use in 1776, the English certainly would have described the revolutionaries in the colonies as terrorists. We would have thought much differently.

The unfortunate effect of modern terrorism is that it has taken, as a given, that assaults on civilian populations are a necessary means to the desired end. That has made sympathy for their beliefs next to impossible amongst observers outside the direct conflict.

Equally unfortunate is the perception of many terrorist groups that attacking the supporters of their enemies accomplishes their aims against their enemies. There have been far more attacks against the US than against Saudi Arabia, for example (although the number of attacks inside SA is growing), even though the corrupt monarchy of Saudi Arabia is a primary target of al-Qaeda and similar groups.

As unfortunately, our national policy has linked us inextricably with Saudi Arabia, for the sake of oil and for protection of the dollar. If the Reagan administration had amplified, rather than strangled, the energy programs initiated during the Carter administration, if energy independence in this country had become an integral part of national foreign and domestic policy, we might have been able to disassociate the US from Saudi Arabian corruption, and removed ourselves from al-Qaeda's list of targets.

Similarly, if we had steadfastly cooperated with the UN--beginning in 1955--in a fair, balanced solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, we would not now be suffering the effects of guilt by association.

But, we didn't, and now our daily life is being influenced by religious fanatics, at home and abroad. I can't condone the targeting decisions of al-Qaeda and its ilk, but I can understand why they feel we are antithetical to their aims. The United States has often chosen not to employ sensible conflict avoidance, and a lot of people, here and elsewhere, have died because of that. Realpolitik (to include our CIA's assistance to bin Laden and his fighters during the Soviet-Afghanistan war) has not served us well.

[LeahMira]

16. Not so.

Remember the old saw, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

Sorry, but when it gets to random killings, it's no longer fighting for freedom.

Still, I do think that no one resorts to terrorism until they think all the other possible options haven't worked and haven't any chance of ever working.

[punpirate]

22. Therein you describe someone else's freedom fighter....

If all other options haven't worked, that's a measure of the desperation to succeed. It's still a matter of perspective. If one can't see how the other side thinks, then one can't either anticipate what they will do, or can't see the degree to which one's own policies interfere with one's own aims.

And, I would take issue with your description as what happens as "random killings." These are not random--they are calculated for maximum political effect.

And, as someone else mentioned, the fire-bombings of the civilians of Tokyo and of Dresden, and the atomic attacks on two Japanese cities in WWII can't exactly be described as strictly military operations, or as an integral part of "fighting for freedom." We think of them differently in this country because of our general point of view--because they reinforce our belief in ourselves as always acting honorably, even though these bombings represented at the time a marked departure in the way was conducted. How are those events to be reconciled with our condemnation of attacks on other civilians by present-day terrorists? Obviously, from an objective and distant point of view, there's no reconciliation possible. They are one and the same--use, whenever possible, the destruction of the civilian population to sway opinion to one's desired end.

Both applications of the policy were and are reprehensible.

Cheers.

[Djinn]

37. cool

which is exactly why the US government has NEVER EVER "fought for freedom" dropping cluster bombs (most of which lie around for years waiting to blow up a small curious child) and bombs that suck the oxygen out of the atmos, and Napalm and etc etc etc do not only attack Al Qaeda operatives, or VC soldiers (although how ANYONE ever thought they didn't claqssify as fighting for their freedom is beyond me) or Taliban thugs they maim and kill innocent men women and children.

The US government is without a doubt the biggest supporter of terrorism in the 20th and 21st century.

[info being]

46. So you're saying that only attacks on the military are justified?

I'll go along with that, actually. Any attack on uninvolved civilians, regardless of the perpetrator, should be considered terrorism. Any attack on a soldier is an act of war.

[Gramps]

5. What makes it terrorism...

...is that the INTENT is to target and kill innocent people.

Al-Qaeda TRIES to kill as many innocent people as they can. Our US soldiers try to avoid killing innocents, while targeting military assets.

[leesa]

8. Our soldiers are not trying to avoid killing civilians. You don't drop

bombs in the middle of a city of 5 million and pretend you aren't targeting civilians. That is a very poor rationalization for terrorism.

[BillZBubb]

12. Dresden? Hiroshima? My Lai? Baghdad?

Every nation in war now has no qualms about killing civilians. It is assumed to be a cost of doing business. In some cases, civilians are directly targeted, in others they are accepted collateral losses. In all cases there is no question that innocents will die.

I think the line is very, very blurry. Not nearly as clear cut as you seem to think.

[sendero]

13. When you start a war...

... that is guaranteed to kill thousands of civilians, all to catch a tin-pot dictator that was our friend about 15 years ago, well how is that not INTENT?

There is absolutely no way ANYONE will EVER be able to justify the war in Iraq. Saddam was bad, but he was not 10,000 civilians, 560 Americans, 200 billion dollars bad.

[ParanoidPat]

15. Can you say "Shock and Awe" Gramps?

Good! I knew you could! Unless I'm mistaken, my guess is that it was plenty terrifying and deadly to many of the civilian population in Baghdad. Not to mention totally unnecessary. They did nothing to provoke us and offered no threat to us and we attacked them with unbelievable ferocity killing over 10,000 innocent civilians, destroying the civilian power grid and water system against all manner of International laws and the Geneva conventions.

Certainly would qualify as a 'terror' attack in my book. :(

[Djinn]

39. Bullshit

it's completely disengenuous to drop a bomb in a residential area and claim "but we weren't targetting civilians" If I get rat faced, get in my car and drive at 100k's down a residential street, telling the judge "I didn't mean to kill people would cut me no slack at all and it shouldn't - there are certain dangers that should be patently obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temp and while that may absolve Shrub it doesn't absolve the Shrub Admin.

BTW - Given the Taliban came from very specific areas in Afghanistan for example can you please explain why cluster bombs (containing 202 individual submunitions or "bomblets" to use the cutesy name) that CAN NOT be specifically targeted were dropped in areas that had NEVER been held by the Taliban?

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

6. Depends on how you want to define terrorism

I think a key component of "terrorism" is deliberately targeting innocent civilians: 9-11, Oklahoma City, Madrid. The "daisy cutter on a wedding party" example was not intentional, hence the difference.

But some would define terrorism differently and consider any form of attack "terrorism". A valid take.

[Disturbed]

7. Not a valid comparison.

The Daisy Cutter incident may have been a screw up. There are other examples of the US Govt. via CIA that should be used as examples of terrorism either direct or indirect acts of terrorism.

The CIA's Drug-Trafficking Activities
The CIA, Cocaine Smuggling at Mena and the Train Deaths
Mind Control and the CIA's Use of LSD
Ralph McGehee and CIABASE
More about the CIA
Links to Further Documents Concerning the CIA


CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator.

The CIA trains the dictator's security apparatus to crack down on the
traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists" but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow. — Steve Kangas: Timeline of CIA Atrocities

http://www.serendipity.li/cia.html

[leesa]

9. BUT the act of invading and carpet bombing a country that had nothing to

with 9-11 was an intentional act. You are talking about an individual event. It is the war as a whole that is a terrorists attack. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to play ball with the pipeline Cheney wanted. We invaded Iraq because we wanted to steal her resources.

Those "wars" were extreme acts of terrorism.

[renegade000]

17. ummm when it doesn't kill innocent people....?

:shrug:

[The Magistrate]

18. It Is Simple, Ma'am

Those persons called terrorists are simply private individuals who have arrogated to themselves the use of violence for political ends, that is a traditional prerogative of the sovereign. It is really more akin to a crafts' union dispute, a protest by Carpenters, say, that non-union cratftsmen are erecting back porches, than anything else...

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Dunedain]

23. nice allegory

[tkmorris]

25. Perhaps so but

that doesn't make it more or less moral. You say that the right to use force to acheive political ends is traditionally the prerogative of the sovereign and while that is true it does not address the very real need of those who have no sovereignty, nor access to it, to achieve political ends in their own right.

Who will tell the Palestinians in the West Bank that Israel has the right to use force to ensure their security but the Palestinians do not because they lack "sovereignty"? Not I sir, that is certain. Terrorism has historically been the tool of those who have no military force to assert; those who lack sovereignty or whose government is so corrupt as to be of little use in ensuring the rights or even the survival of those who would be terrorists.

You belittle their disputes by pointing out their lack of the more accepted tools of war when in fact their very lack of same is the source for their desperation. Their disputes are as real as any between nations, they simply lack the official recognition. I deplore the killing of innocents but I harbor no illusions in the matter. As long as governments insist upon placing certain peoples in such dire peril that such attacks are well and truly their last resort terrorism will thrive.

[The Magistrate]

28. If There Is Belitlement Involved, Sir, In My Comment

It is more of the pretentions of the sovereign state, than of anything else. It was not my purpose to engage the question of legitimacy, by either sort of actor, because that is not a question that can really be addressed generally but only on a case by case basis. The current laws of war do recognize a sort of belligerent rights for armed organizations without sovereign footing, by conditioning what a sovereign state can do in opposing them, and requiring them to adhere themselves to the laws of war in conflict with a state. It is here, of course, that most of these non-state acors fail the test, as their operations are generally aimed solely at killing civilians, and this is unargueably a crime of war. It does not matter if the cause is legitimate; this does not confer the right to commit crimes of war in furtherance of it.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[JohnLocke]

51. You hit the nail on the proverbial head.

"Legitimacy," not virtue, is the primary factor when one decides whether destructive activities committed by a group constitutes terrorism.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Character Assassin]

20. With such glaringly dishonest rhetoric, it's hard to take this seriously

When a series of bombs go off in Spain it is condemned as an
"attack against democracy", while when a daisy-cutter is
dropped from 35,000 feet onto an Afghan wedding party it is
"war against terrorism".

The US did indeed mistakenly bomb a wedding party. Estimates of the dead ranged from 20 to 60.

It was, however, not with a daisy cutter, and this should be patently obvious to anyone without the desire to use terms with heavy media buzz to generate more outrage or shock value.

There would not only have been no survivors, there wouldn't have been anything left of them.

I'm not buying what he's selling.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

21. Agreed

Also, the 35,000 feet reference works against his point.

Dropping a bomb from, say 1,000 feet, would leave much less margin for error.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. When are people going to learn

that if they are in the right, it is not necessary to embellish the facts.


The concept is valid, bombing civilians is terrorism whether the bomb is delivered via airplane or via suicide bomber.


Therefore it is counterproductive to confuse the issue with inaccurate hyperbole.

[Nihil]

24. "Winning"

That is the only thing that appears to make terrorism right.

Look at the changes in South Africa.

Look at the establishment of Israel.

Look (as someone else mentioned) at the establishment of the USA.

Each one involved "freedom fighters" (from the winners' viewpoint) who
were also "terrorists" (as seen by the losers).

The winners write the history books and are thus forgiven their crimes.

Nihil

[sweetheart]

26. terrorism is the heart of the cold war

It is terror to use military force. It kills masses of people, and
if you don't think the thousands of people killed by american high
altitude explosives did not feel terror, youd be wrong. Terror is
an instrument of war on both sides of this illusory conflict.

As terrorism is just a tool of warcraft, your question is
better refined to: "Is there a just war."

No. The weapons of modern warfare, even of the terrorist genre
like suicide belts are merely matched by a state terrorist weapon
like cluster bombss. None of these weapons can be used ethically.
There is no just "TOTAL" war. American focus on using TOTAL
war to zero-sum surrender, vs, covert war.

History shows that wars spawn more wars, like ripples in water.

Suicide bombers are just cheap smart bombs, each is equally
deplorable to use when there are alternatives.

Clearly the people involved don't believe there are alternatives.
People would rather settle the game zero sum for their egotistic
vindictive sense, than get real and end the violence.

Nonviolence is the most powerful weapon of war.

[supercrash]

27. BTW guys....

When the American people made the choice to support war in Iraq based on lies....they are no longer innocent.,..they made themselves targets

When the US invades a country based on lies....and then those lies are exposed...and the people STILL supoort the war

Then they are targets

These decisions are very very important

[civil_liberties_dem]

33. good point.

By america's own definition of what is a 'legitimate' target, everything that was hit by terrorists so far was legitimate.

Remember the war in yugoslavia, america bombed the yugo factory killing as many as 4 thousand people. They bombed yugoslav federal communications building. Killing many including 19 international journalists. All of these were considered legitimate.

In Iraq america starved to death 1.5 million Iraqis. They bombed multiple 100's of thousands to death. In Madelin Albright's words it was 'worth it'.

I laughed when I heard america was going into Iraq. It would be like al-qaida trying to occupy and bring peace to ameria. Every american would never submit to them and they would be sniping them off every chance they got. As we see in Iraq.. exactly what I predicted.

I hear that the USS cole was a 'terror' attack. And that the pentagon attack was a 'terror' attack. Huh? if there ever was a military target the pentagon was it.

Also America said that the serb people were guilty because they didn't get rid of Milosevic themselves. That is the exact same argument the terrorists are making about the civilian populations they are at war with. Yet when the terrorist say it they are 'crazy psychopathic zealots'. When america says it is rational thinking.

Even if Iraq had WMD, America has WMD and has used them before, so its a ridiculus argument for going to war. The only argument would have been Iraq was a direct threat to the american people. Which it clearly wasn't even according to rumsfeld.

How stupid can people be to honestly think its 'legal' to bomb another nation because they MAY be building the same weapons that you brag about having. Even the europeans were fooled by this obvious logical fallacy.

[Snivi Yllom]

29. one nations terrorist is another's freedom fighter

[mrgorth]

31. The difference is intent

look, I'm against the Iraq war and all but if you seriously want to know the difference it's intent. I don't think Afghanistan was done right either (hence, the daisycutters) but accidentally hitting civilians is not the same thing as directly targetting them.

[civil_liberties_dem]

32. yes but ultimately that difference is merely academic

That is the argument that america has used for some time. The problem is to the family of the dead people they don't care whether it was an 'accident' or on 'purpose'.

It matters as a intellectual feeling of being right only. Well congratulations you are right, however the people you killed accidently are coming to kill you now.

Lets say its legal to fire guns off in an area. There is one man who is especialy reckless and he has killed 9 people now from randomly shooting his gun off. He apologizes and says it wasn't on purpose. He is still a threat that the community will have to deal with. Even though hes not intentionaly killing anyone.

Who is more a danger to a community a man who accidently kills 9 people, or someone who intentionaly kills one person.

This argument about intention is the same argument the Isrealis are making. They say they are better then the 'terrorists' they are fighting. To a palestinian man who just lost his wife to an isreali 'accident' feels just as sad as an isreali man who just lost his wife to a 'terrorist'.

And in the end who suffers from this dellusion of being right? The isrealis themselves for each year we see a growing terror. Isrealis quality of life is sinking lower and lower as they have to fear terror every moment of their lives. And most know someone or themselves have been wounded in an incident. I have read of several Isrealis who have been in two or more attacks and lived. One guy died when for the third time he was wounded by terrorists.

What people in this world care about is security. They want to live in peace. Whether that peace is being threatened by someone who is accidently killing them or someone who is intentionaly targeting them is irrelevant. They will move aggressively to stop either threat.

[corporatewhore]

34. welcome to DU

:hi:

[civil_liberties_dem]

43. Thanks!:)

:toast:

[DrWeird]

41. Then how about Hiroshima?

Or Dresden?

Or the other similar targets?

[Djinn]

42. and you can

drop bombs on a crowded residential area and still claim it wasn't your intent to kill civilians????????

Australian soldiers who have a much stricter set of rules of engagement (and who are also far from immune from charges of terror) pulled out of dozens of bombing runs given to them by the US military in Iraq because they were able to ascertain that the target's weren't bomb making factories but mechanic's warehouses and other such CIVILIAN targets.

The crap about "smart" or "guided" bombs should have discarded by any thinking person when during the Yugoslav War a "smart bomb" hit a residential House in Bulgaria - when they can't even hit the right country (also seen in Afghanistan where several bombs hit neighbouring nations) how can anyone claim they can hit specific buildings/people with a straight face??

Edit: In response to DrWeird's pertinent points - you can add the fire bombing of Japanese civilians that killed millions

[Postman]

35. if you're victorious, it was "right"

the victors are the ones who right the history books.

Could George Washington be classified as "terrorist" in 1777?

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".

[Disturbed]

36. Americans

Better get used to terrorist attacks at home and abroad because
even if by some fluke Kerry gets elected, the terrorist attacks will continue. Kerry's foreign policy may contain more alliance with former allies but the Imperialism of the USA will continue, as will the resitance to it.

[info being]

47. I happen to agree with you

[RichM]

38. "A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force."

(quote from William Blum)

[JohnLocke]

45. A terrorist is someone who tries to kill civilians on purpose...

...with the approval of a non-governmental organization.

[Djinn]

49. That's actually NOT the definition

that widely accepted - most people accept that GOVERMENT's can also be terrorists. If not then NOTHING the Taliban did was terrorism right? Or is it only terrorism when THEIR governments engage in it??

[JohnLocke]

50. The Taliban (or Taleban, whichever you prefer) were not terrorists.

They were a repressive, illegitimate government, but they were not terrorists.

[Kitsune]

40. War IS terrorism.

And neither is defensible.

[corporatewhore]

44. ditto

[RichardRay]

48. The intent of terrorism is to create terror

other 'advances' of a political agenda are not the business of the terrorist.

Read Frantz Fanon.